| CODE No. | NP/DDD/1105/1073 | P.FILE No. | 1119530 | |----------|------------------|------------|----------| | GRID REF | 421455 / 367716 | | |

**APPLICANT** J Ball\
20 Yeld Road\
Bakewell\
Derbyshire\
DE45 1FX\
Tel No. [redacted]

**c/o AGENT** A. R. Yarwood\
Wheatley Barn\
Wheatley Road\
Two Dales\
MATLOCK\
Derbyshire\
DE4 2FF\
Tel No. [redacted]

**APPL TYPE** Full Planning Permission

**PROPOSAL** Retention of development without complying with with condition no.2 on NP/DDD/1199/555

**LOCATION** 51/51a Burton Edge\
Bakewell

**PARISH** Bakewell

**ADVERT DATE** 03/02/2006

**LAST ADVERT DATE** 24/02/2006

**CONSTRAINT(S)** Planning Application Conditions\
NP/DDD/1199/555\
Plot File Boundary\
6737\
Plot File Boundary\
11130

**CONSULTATIONS** Bakewell Town Council\
07/11/2005\
07/11/2005\
3 - 2 - 0

Derbyshire County Council (Highways)\
07/11/2005\
07/11/2005\
3 - 2 - 0

Derbyshire Dales District Council\
07/11/2005\
07/11/2005\
3 - 2 - 0

**COMMITTEE**

**DECISION** Refused

**APPEAL** Date Lodged\
22/01/2006\
Decision\
Date\
22/01/2006\
Decision\
Date PLANNING DECISION NOTICE

To: J Ball c/o A. R. Yarwood Wheatley Barn Wheatley Road Two Dales MATLOCK Derbyshire DE4 2FF

THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER

In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for Full Planning Permission, details of which are as follows:

Office Code No. NP/DDD/1105/1073 Date received: 07 November 2005 Proposal: Retention of development without complying with with condition no.2 on NP/DDD/1199/555 Location: 51 Burton Edge Bakewell Parish: Bakewell

THE DECISION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is

REFUSED for the following reasons:

The National Park Authority has a statutory purpose under the Environment Act 1995 to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park and to promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of the Park's special qualities. Where these aims conflict, the conservation of the Park takes precedence. In pursuing them, the Authority has a duty to foster the economic and social well being of local communities. Consequently it is the policy of the Authority, as set out in the Development Plan (consisting of the 1994 Structure Plan and the 2001 Local Plan), to ensure that the valued characteristics of the National Park will be conserved and enhanced now and for future generations. [Structure Plan {SPP} GS1 and Local Plan {LPP} LC4]. Therefore development incompatible with policies in the Development Plan will not normally be permitted.

Cont/d...

Signed

Date 23/5/06

Attention is called to the notes at the end of this Decision Notice For the purposes of the development plan, this site is located in the within the limits of Bakewell, which is a designated Local Plan Settlement as defined in Policy LC3 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan. Under Peak National Park Structure Plan Policy C3(ii) there is a presumption in favour of development provided that the scale, siting, landscaping and building materials are appropriate. Under Structure Plan Policy HC1(a) residential development will be permitted in the designated town and villages provided that it is for the conversion of an existing building of traditional design and material in accordance with Structure Plan Policy C3. Under Policy LC4(iv) of the Local Plan, where development is acceptable in principle, particular attention will be paid to the amenity, privacy and security of the development and of nearby properties. Under Policy LC6(iv) permission will not be granted for the conversion of an outbuilding to residential use if the new accommodation would not remain under the control of the occupier of the main dwelling. The proposed development would conflict with these policies for reasons that are given below.

Policy HC1 of the Peak Park Structure Plan permits the conversion of buildings of traditional design and materials for residential use, but does not permit the erection of new dwellings for unrestricted, open market housing. Although the building in question has been clad in traditional materials it is of recent origin, no more than 7 years old, and to release the building from its current restriction for open market housing would be tantamount to approving a new dwelling for that purpose. The application is accordingly contrary to Policy HC1 of the Peak National Park Structure Plan.

The application has been expressed as being for the removal of Condition (2) on permission NP/DDD/1999/555 to permit the site to be occupied as 2 separated dwellings. Policy HC1 allows the conversion of buildings of traditional design and materials, but this is not considered to be a building of traditional design, and the proposed development is not considered to be necessary to conserve the building or the character of the National Park. Policy LH6 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan expressly precludes the conversion of an outbuilding in the curtilage of a dwelling to form a separate dwelling. It is considered that conversion of this building to form a separate dwelling would result in a seriously over-intensive use of a restricted site and would result in poor levels of external amenity space to serve the occupants of both existing and proposed dwellings, particularly for the proposed dwelling where the potential private space would be both very limited and could not be protected from public view. Moreover, the proposed dwelling itself and its garden would suffer from a very poor outlook, and would be seriously overlooked by the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed parking/access area would be likely to result in conflict of movements and parking between the users of the proposed and existing dwellings, and the proposed dwelling in particular would suffer loss of enjoyment arising from vehicular movements and general disturbance in close proximity associated with the use of the existing dwelling. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies C3(ii) and HC1(a) of the Peak National Park Structure Plan, and Policies LC4(iv) and LH6 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan. STATEMENT OF APPLICANT'S RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION OR FROM THE GRANT OF PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

Appeals to the Secretary of State

- If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- If you want to appeal, then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this notice, using a form which you can get from the Planning Inspectorate at Customer Support Unit, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, telephone No. 0117 372 8000 or www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk.
- The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.
- The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.
- In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based its decision on a direction given by him.

Purchase Notices

- If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for the Environment refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.
- In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London) or, where the land is situated in a National Park, the National Park Authority for that Park in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council or Authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 52/06 2. NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITY CONSULTATION – PROPOSED EXTENSIONS TO AND CONTINUATION OF EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING AT BRASSINGTON MOOR QUARRY, NEAR LONGCLIFFE, DERBYSHIRE, APPLICATION CODE NO. CM3/1205/156 (A93128/APB)

Clr Mrs B J Wilson declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest as a member of Derbyshire County Council and a prejudicial interest as Longcliffe Quarries employed a relation. She therefore left the room.

RESOLVED:

That the Authority recommends that the application should be REFUSED on the basis of adverse impact upon the landscape and uncertainties over phasing and restoration proposals, and that alternative methods of working, phasing and landscaping of the development are available that are less damaging to the landscape setting of the National Park.

53/06 3. APPLICATION FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSENT, FINE GRINDING LTD, NEAR EYAM (HAZ/05/1, P3917/JH)

Mr D Hollis, the applicant's Health and Safety representative, was present to answer Members' questions.

In response to Members' queries Mr Hollis stated that all materials were now stored inside and under cover.

The Minerals Team Manager reported that the application had been made due to advice from the Health and Safety Executive and that it was a specific application to which normal planning conditions could not be attached. It was agreed that a letter could be sent to the applicant requesting enhancement of the site.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED and added to the Authority's register of Hazardous Substances Consents, subject to the following conditions:

1. The maximum quantity of the material 'recovered cryolite' processed and stored on site at any time shall not exceed 800 tonnes.

2. The Authority shall be notified of any proposed changes to the sources of supply, the quantities stored or the nature of the processing of the material 'recovered cryolite' at the site.

54/06 4. FULL APPLICATION – RETENTION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 2 ON NP/DDD/1999/0555 TO ALLOW OCCUPATION AS TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, 51 BURTON EDGE, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/1105/1073, P.11130, 7.11.05, 421455/367716/CT)

Clr Mrs J A Twigg declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this item as she knew the applicant.

Mr Ball, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. In response to Members' queries he stated that he would be willing to accept a local occupancy condition.

The Head of Development Control stated that the previous consent for the garage to be turned into living accommodation was for ancillary accommodation only. A motion for refusal, on the grounds of over intensification and property not being for sale long enough, was moved and seconded.

An amendment to the motion for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the area and amenity was then proposed and seconded. This was voted on and accepted. The motion for a site visit was then voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the area and amenity.

55/06

5. FULL APPLICATION - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF PRE-FAB CLASSROOM AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT PERMANENT CLASSROOM AT ST. ANSELMS SCHOOL, STANEDGE RD, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0106/0038, P4911, 17.01.06, 421380/368714/ALN)

Clr Mrs J A Twigg declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this item as she knew the objector who had given notice to speak.

It was reported that a fax had been received from C A Walker of Conifer Cottage, Bagshawe Hill, Bakewell, dated 20 April 2006, expressing concerns of local residents and this was summarised for the Committee.

It was also reported that a petition against the application had been received, containing 74 signatures of residents of the area.

Mr R Bridge, an objector, spoke against the application. He alleged that the application was void as the certificate of ownership, submitted with the application, had the wrong name on it.

Mr I Bourke, St Anselms School Finance Director, spoke in favour of the application.

In view of the allegation regarding the ownership certificate a motion for deferral to clarify the situation was proposed and seconded. However the Officers stated that the Agent had submitted the certificate on behalf of the applicants and as far as they were aware the applicants owned the land relating to the planning application. They also stated that it was the applicant's responsibility to ensure the certificate was correct.

The motion for deferral was then voted on but lost.

The Head of Development Control emphasised that the application was for replacement of a temporary building with some upgrading and not an expansion.

The recommendation for approval subject to conditions was moved and seconded. It was agreed to add conditions covering submission of a green travel plan and use of renewable energy where possible and to strengthen recommendation 2. The motion for approval was then voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

1. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

   (i) Adopt amended plans

   (ii) Roofs to be in 'Hardrow' tiles to match or natural blue slate

   (iii) Design details Some Members also raised concerns about the visibility of the proposed roof lights and felt they would be better situated on the rear of the barn. The Planning Officer stated that the applicant would prefer to keep them where proposed due to the lighting within the barn.

A request was made that Officers look into practices for thermal efficiency of Listed Buildings.

A motion for approval subject to conditions and subject to an alternative access being agreed from the front of the barn was moved and seconded.

It was agreed that the position of the roof lights could be agreed under minor design conditions.

Members agreed that they needed further information regarding the alternative access proposals; therefore the motion for approval was withdrawn. A motion for deferral for further information, including full visual information, to be obtained and presented to the next meeting was moved, seconded and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be DEFERRED to enable further information on the alternative access to be obtained and presented to the next meeting.

75/06

2. LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION – CONVERSION OF BARN TO DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESS AND ACCESS DRIVE, NETHER FARM BARN, THE SANDS/OFF FAIRHOUSE LANE, LOW BRADFIELD (NP/S/1005/1037, P.2096, 20.10.2005/2617 9197/KW)

It was agreed to defer this application in line with the previous related application (see Minute 74/06 above).

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be DEFERRED to enable further information on the alternative access to be obtained and presented to the next meeting.

76/06

3. FULL APPLICATION – RETENTION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 2 ON NP/DDD/1999/0555 TO ALLOW OCCUPATION AS TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, 51 BURTON EDGE, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/1105/1073, P.11130, 7.11.05, 421455/367716/CT)

Mrs K Potter declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as the Agent, who had given notice to speak at the meeting, had sponsored her for a charity event she was taking part in at the weekend. Mrs Potter therefore left the room.

The Planning Officer showed photos of the site and reported that after further discussions with the Authority’s Policy Planning Manager he would like to add an additional reason for refusal stating that a new open market dwelling was contrary to the intention of the development plan. Therefore if Members were minded to approve the application it would need to be referred to the Authority meeting as a policy issue.

Mr Hams reported that Members had visited the site the previous day and that they had viewed the estate. He stated that most of the estate was similar with semi-detached housing, garages, outbuildings and large gardens. The property the application related to had a substantial annex at the rear, which had taken up approximately a third of the garden. It was noted that the submitted plans did not show a defined curtilage for the annex and there was insufficient residential curtilage for 2 dwellings with a shared access. Mr A R Yarwood, the Agent, spoke in favour of the application.

A motion for refusal for the reason set out in the report and the additional reason given by Officers at the meeting was moved and seconded. This was then voted on and carried.

In response to Member queries regarding the re-numbering of the property, the Planning Officer reported that he had contacted the Local Authority and they were not aware of the re-numbering of the property.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. Over development harming the character and amenity of the area
2. A new open market dwelling is contrary to the intention of the development plan

77/06 4. FULL APPLICATION - PROPOSED EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AT, THE COTTAGE, CANNON STREET/BESSIE LANE, THE HILLS, BRADWELL (NP/DDD/1205/1172, P.10226, 2.12.05, 1713 8108/KW)

The Planning Officer reported that an email had been received from Bradwell Parish Council, dated 17 May 2006, which stated that they did not support the proposal unless off-road parking was provided consistent with the size of the dwelling. Any increase in on-street parking would seriously impact on the thoroughfare which is already over parked.

He also reported that the applicant had handed a letter to him at the Member site visit held the previous day, which was from a neighbour regarding the disputed right of way. The Planning Officer confirmed that this letter had also been received at the office on 3 May 2006, but as it related to a legal matter and not planning matters he did not summarise it.

An email had also been received from Mr C Furness, an Authority Member, reporting that the wall across the disputed access had been constructed on 15 May.

Clr R Priestley declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this application as he knew the applicant.

Members reported that they had received correspondence from the applicant dated 15 May 2006.

Wing Commander Alan Jones, MBE, an Objector, spoke on behalf of Mr P Downing, another Objector, and himself against the application.

Mr A D Hams declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this application as he knew the applicant's architect.

Mr A Yates, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Mrs Simpson, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. 3. FULL APPLICATION – RETENTION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 2 ON NP/DDD/1999/0555 TO ALLOW OCCUPATION AS TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, 51 BURTON EDGE, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/1105/1073, P.11130, 7.11.05, 421455/367716/CT)

This item was deferred at the last Committee meeting for a members’ site visit.

The site is located within the limits of the designated Local Plan Settlement of Bakewell. The site, lies at the corner of Yeld Road and Burton Edge, and forms a semi-detached dwelling together with a detached outbuilding that provides ancillary living accommodation. The main building is random coursed gritstone under a roof of plain dark roof tiles, and the outbuilding has gritstone walls with a blue slate roof. There is access direct off Yeld Road to a hardstanding for two cars. The outbuilding has been given its own address (51A Burton Edge), has its own post box and telephone line. The building sits in the corner of the plot.

Proposal

An application has been made under Section 73 of the 1991 Act to retain development without complying with a condition that has been imposed on a previous permission. Planning permission NP/DDD/1999/555 allowed the conversion of a garage with loft over to provide additional living accommodation. Condition (2) reads as follows:

“The accommodation hereby approved shall be ancillary to the residential use of 51 Burton Edge and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling. The existing dwelling and the garage conversion shall be maintained as single planning unit”.

The reason given for the condition is:

“The accommodation is considered to be unsuitable for independent occupation because of its relationship with the existing property”.

A brief supporting letter from the agent says that release from the condition would enable the outbuilding to be marketed separately to form 2 separate dwellings. This letter claims that the applicant has been trying to market the house as a single property at a price which reflects the restrictive condition, but without success. The agent says that the “properties” i.e. 51 and 51A Burton Edge were marketed in 2005 for a period of 3 months, resulting in 4 viewings but no offers. No evidence of this exercise, or the marketing details, has been provided.

History

1994 – Planning permission granted for the erection of a detached garage with loft over

1999 – Planning permission granted for the conversion of a garage with loft over to provide additional living accommodation.

Key Issues

1. The principle of establishing a new dwelling on an existing plot, and the adequacy of space about the proposed dwelling and existing dwellings to cater for the reasonable needs of future occupants
2. The relationship of the proposed dwelling to nearby dwellings, and the potential impact of the proposed development on their amenities
3. The adequacy of parking and access arrangements for the existing and proposed dwellings on the site.

Consultations

Highway Authority – Assumes there will be a total of 3 parking spaces, not 2 plus 3 (as indicated on the application form). Would not wish to object to this application subject to a condition as per a previous approval requiring the provision of car parking for 3 vehicles. District Council – Recommends approval.

Town Council – Recommends approval.

**Representations**

4 representations received from nearby residents, all objecting to the application. Reasons may be summarised as follows:

- Will cause parking problems
- Over-intensive
- Adverse visual impact of greater hardstanding
- Loss of residential amenity
- No privacy for future residents
- Insufficient curtilage space
- Set an unacceptable precedent
- Progressive unacceptable changes
- Policy objections
- Non-planning reasons (loss of value)

**Main Policies**

Relevant Structure Plan policies include: GS1, C3, HC1, T8.

Relevant Local Plan policies include: LC2, LC3, LC4, LH6, LT11.

**Comment**

Policies GS1 of the Structure Plan and LC4 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that where new development is permitted its detailed treatment is to a high standard that conserves and where possible enhances the valued characteristics of the National Park. Local Plan Policy LC4(iv) says that particular attention will be paid to matters of detail including the amenity, privacy and security of the development and of nearby properties. Structure Plan Policy C3 permits development generally with the designated settlements provided that there would be no adverse effects on the valued characteristics of the area, and that such matters as scale, siting, landscaping and building materials are appropriate, and design is to a high standard. Structure Plan Policy HC1 permits the conversion of existing buildings of traditional design and materials to residential use provided it is in accordance with Policy C3. Local Plan Policy LH6 says that the conversion of an outbuilding within the curtilage of a dwelling to ancillary use is acceptable provided that the new accommodation would remain under the control of the occupier of the main dwelling.

Although clad in traditional materials the building is no more than 7 years old, therefore it is not considered to fall within policy HC1. To do otherwise would undermine prevailing housing policies.

As indicated above, the agent says that “release from the condition would enable the outbuilding to be marketed separately to form 2 separate dwellings.” This is not strictly true, as even if the terms of the condition were to be released, it would still then be necessary for planning permission to be obtained to form two separate planning units as separate dwellings. However, release from the condition would make it effectively impossible for the National Park Authority to decline an application for a change of use. This application has therefore been treated as though it is for conversion of the outbuilding to a separate dwelling. For reasons that are given below, it is considered that lifting the terms of the condition would be wholly unacceptable from a planning point of view. The existing outbuilding that is in use as ancillary residential accommodation is located between about 5 and 7 metres away from the original dwelling. There is effectively no space to the side or rear of the outbuilding, and the proposed side garden would be only 2-4 metres in width. The remaining rear garden for the original dwelling would be only 3 metres in depth. The remaining garden area would be split between the two, but all that garden area would be between the dwellings and the highway and very open to public gaze. There would effectively be little or no private amenity space for either dwelling.

The outbuilding is at a lower level than the house, and it is possible to look directly down into the two side windows of the outbuilding and its entire garden area. The agent recognises that there is an amenity issue to overcome, and suggests that measures can be put in place to address the problem comprising the provision of obscure, fixed glazing to the west facing first floor window. However, no floor plans have been submitted to show how the conversion would take place, and it is considered that the first floor window could be required to provide living accommodation. There is a ground floor window to be protected as well, but it is considered that the proposed 2-metre screen fence would not be sufficient to overcome overlooking. Moreover, the fence would be in such close proximity to the outbuilding that there would be an extremely poor outlook from that side of the proposed dwelling.

It is proposed to provide an additional parking space for the existing house. There are no objections from the local highways authority to the level of parking proposed, but the turning area for the parking for the existing dwelling would be directly in front of, and in very close proximity to, the proposed dwelling. The occupants would have no control over comings and goings to the adjoining parking area, and it is clear that a car parked in front of the proposed dwelling would severely hinder access to the parking area for the existing dwelling. There is therefore great potential for conflict to arise between users of the separate dwellings, and great potential for loss of amenity to the proposed dwelling arising from uncontrolled vehicle movements and general disturbance associated with comings and goings.

With regard to the marketing exercise, it is considered that either the asking price has been too high, or else the occupant has over-invested in the property making it too expensive. Had the outbuilding been retained as a garage with living accommodation above, it is probably more likely that a buyer could have been found.

The objections identified above clearly indicate that the proposed development would result in a very over-intensive use of this restricted site which would be seriously lacking in private amenity space for both existing and proposed dwellings, and result in unacceptably low levels of amenity for both of them. It is concluded that the proposal is in conflict with the National Park Authority's development plan policies and that the condition was correctly imposed. The application is accordingly recommended for refusal.

**Human Rights**

Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.

**RECOMMENDATION:**

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

Over development harming the character and amenity of the area

A new open market dwelling will be contrary to the intention of the development plan.

List of Background Papers (not previously published)

Nil Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Application - Determination

Full Application - Retention of Development without Complying with Condition 2 on NP/DDD/1999/0555 to Allow Occupation as Two Separate Dwellings, 51 Burton Edge, Bakewell (NP/DDD/1105/1073, P.11130, 7.11.05, 421455/367716/CT)

The above application will be considered by Planning Committee on Friday 19 May 2006 at 10.00 am in the Conference Room, Agricultural Business Centre, Agricultural Way, Bakewell (copy report enclosed).

Should you wish to speak at the meeting under the Authority's 'Public Participation Scheme' (copy attached), please notify Democratic Services either in writing, by e-mail democraticservices@peakdistrict.npa.gov.uk, fax 01629 816311 or by telephone 01629 816362 or 01629 816382 by 12 noon two working days before the meeting. If no notification is received by this deadline you will not be allowed to speak.

If you do give notice to speak please telephone Democratic Services after 2.00 pm on the Wednesday prior to the meeting when you will be advised as to the estimated time that your item will be heard.

If you do not wish to speak but just wish to attend the meeting to listen to the debate please telephone Democratic Services after 10.00 am on the Thursday prior to the meeting for the estimated time that your item will be considered by the Committee.

If you require further help or advice regarding the Public Participation Scheme or committee procedure, please telephone Democratic Services on 01629 816362 or 01629 816382.

Please note that your planning application may be subject to an informal site visit by Members of the Committee on the Thursday preceding the Friday Committee meeting. These visits are purely fact finding visits and no decisions will be made at the site visit. You will not be notified of the visit unless there is a need to gain entry to your land.

Yours faithfully

Democratic Services

Encs

M:\\shared\\CustomerService\\PLANNING\\DRAFTS\\Letters re Public Participation\\DDD1105-1073\\11/05/06 09:25\\JAA Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Application - Determination Revocation of Condition Application - Retention of Development without Complying with Condition 2 on NP/DDD/1999/0555 to Allow Occupation as Two Separate Dwellings, 51 Burton Edge, Bakewell (NP/DDD/1105/1073 P.11130/CT1)

The above application will be considered by Planning Committee on Friday 21 April 2006 at 10.00 am in the Board Room, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, DE45 1AE (copy report enclosed).

Should you wish to speak at the meeting under the Authority's 'Public Participation Scheme' (copy attached), please notify Democratic Services either in writing, by e-mail democraticservices@peakdistrict-npa.gov.uk, fax 01629 816311 or by telephone 01629 816362 or 01629 816382 by 12 noon two working days before the meeting. If no notification is received by this deadline you will not be allowed to speak.

If you do give notice to speak please telephone Democratic Services after 2.00 pm on the Wednesday prior to the meeting when you will be advised as to the estimated time that your item will be heard.

If you do not wish to speak but just wish to attend the meeting to listen to the debate please telephone Democratic Services after 10.00 am on the Thursday prior to the meeting for the estimated time that your item will be considered by the Committee.

If you require further help or advice regarding the Public Participation Scheme or committee procedure, please telephone Democratic Services on 01629 816362 or 01629 816382.

Please note that your planning application may be subject to an informal site visit by Members of the Committee on the Thursday preceding the Friday Committee meeting. These visits are purely fact finding visits and no decisions will be made at the site visit. You will not be notified of the visit unless there is a need to gain entry to your land.

Yours faithfully

Democratic Services

Encs

M:\\shared\\Typing\\temp\\97\\DDD1105-1073\\30\\03\\06 13:27/JAA 4. FULL APPLICATION – RETENTION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 2 ON NP/DDD/1999/0555 TO ALLOW OCCUPATION AS TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, 51 BURTON EDGE, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/1105/1073, P.11130, 7.11.05, 421455/367716/CT)

The site is located within the limits of the designated Local Plan Settlement of Bakewell. The site, lies at the corner of Yeld Road and Burton Edge, and forms a semi-detached dwelling together with a detached outbuilding that provides ancillary living accommodation. The main building is random coursed gritstone under a roof of plain dark roof tiles, and the outbuilding has gritstone walls with a blue slate roof. There is access direct off Yeld Road to a hardstanding for two cars. The outbuilding has been given its own address (51A Burton Edge), has its own post box and telephone line. The building sits in the corner of the plot.

Proposal

An application has been made under Section 73 of the 1991 Act to retain development without complying with a condition that has been imposed on a previous permission. Planning permission NP/DDD/1999/555 allowed the conversion of a garage with loft over to provide additional living accommodation. Condition (2) reads as follows:

"The accommodation hereby approved shall be ancillary to the residential use of 51 Burton Edge and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling. The existing dwelling and the garage conversion shall be maintained as single planning unit".

The reason given for the condition is:

"The accommodation is considered to be unsuitable for independent occupation because of its relationship with the existing property".

A brief supporting letter from the agent says that release from the condition would enable the outbuilding to be marketed separately to form 2 separate dwellings. This letter claims that the applicant has been trying to market the house as a single property at a price which reflects the restrictive condition, but without success. The agent says that the "properties" i.e. 51 and 51A Burton Edge were marketed in 2005 for a period of 3 months, resulting in 4 viewings but no offers. No evidence of this exercise, or the marketing details, has been provided.

History

1994 – Planning permission granted for the erection of a detached garage with loft over

1999 – Planning permission granted for the conversion of a garage with loft over to provide additional living accommodation.

Key Issues

1. The principle of establishing a new dwelling on an existing plot, and the adequacy of space about the proposed dwelling and existing dwellings to cater for the reasonable needs of future occupants
2. The relationship of the proposed dwelling to nearby dwellings, and the potential impact of the proposed development on their amenities
3. The adequacy of parking and access arrangements for the existing and proposed dwellings on the site.

Consultations

Highway Authority – Assumes there will be a total of 3 parking spaces, not 2 plus 3 (as indicated on the application form). Would not wish to object to this application subject to a condition as per a previous approval requiring the provision of car parking for 3 vehicles. District Council – Recommends approval.

Town Council – Recommends approval.

Representations

4 representations received from nearby residents, all objecting to the application. Reasons may be summarised as follows:

- Will cause parking problems
- Over-intensive
- Adverse visual impact of greater hardstanding
- Loss of residential amenity
- No privacy for future residents
- Insufficient curtilage space
- Set an unacceptable precedent
- Progressive unacceptable changes
- Policy objections
- Non-planning reasons (loss of value)

Main Policies

Relevant Structure Plan policies include: GS1, C3, HC1, T8.

Relevant Local Plan policies include: LC2, LC3, LC4, LH6, LT11.

Comment

Policies GS1 of the Structure Plan and LC4 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that where new development is permitted its detailed treatment is to a high standard that conserves and where possible enhances the valued characteristics of the National Park. Local Plan Policy LC4(iv) says that particular attention will be paid to matters of detail including the amenity, privacy and security of the development and of nearby properties. Structure Plan Policy C3 permits development generally with the designated settlements provided that there would be no adverse effects on the valued characteristics of the area, and that such matters as scale, siting, landscaping and building materials are appropriate, and design is to a high standard. Structure Plan Policy HC1 permits the conversion of existing buildings of traditional design and materials to residential use provided it is in accordance with Policy C3. Local Plan Policy LH6 says that the conversion of an outbuilding within the curtilage of a dwelling to ancillary use is acceptable provided that the new accommodation would remain under the control of the occupier of the main dwelling.

Although clad in traditional materials the building is no more than 7 years old, therefore it is not considered to fall within policy HC1. To do otherwise would undermine prevailing housing policies.

As indicated above, the agent says that “release from the condition would enable the outbuilding to be marketed separately to form 2 separate dwellings.” This is not strictly true, as even if the terms of the condition were to be released, it would still then be necessary for planning permission to be obtained to form two separate planning units as separate dwellings. However, release from the condition would make it effectively impossible for the National Park Authority to decline an application for a change of use. This application has therefore been treated as though it is for conversion of the outbuilding to a separate dwelling. For reasons that are given below, it is considered that lifting the terms of the condition would be wholly unacceptable from a planning point of view. The existing outbuilding that is in use as ancillary residential accommodation is located between about 5 and 7 metres away from the original dwelling. There is effectively no space to the side or rear of the outbuilding, and the proposed side garden would be only 2-4 metres in width. The remaining rear garden for the original dwelling would be only 3 metres in depth. The remaining garden area would be split between the two, but all that garden area would be between the dwellings and the highway and very open to public gaze. There would effectively be little or no private amenity space for either dwelling.

The outbuilding is at a lower level than the house, and it is possible to look directly down into the two side windows of the outbuilding and its entire garden area. The agent recognises that there is an amenity issue to overcome, and suggests that measures can be put in place to address the problem comprising the provision of obscure, fixed glazing to the west facing first floor window. However, no floor plans have been submitted to show how the conversion would take place, and it is considered that the first floor window could be required to provide living accommodation. There is a ground floor window to be protected as well, but it is considered that the proposed 2-metre screen fence would not be sufficient to overcome overlooking. Moreover, the fence would be in such close proximity to the outbuilding that there would be an extremely poor outlook from that side of the proposed dwelling.

It is proposed to provide an additional parking space for the existing house. There are no objections from the local highways authority to the level of parking proposed, but the turning area for the parking for the existing dwelling would be directly in front of, and in very close proximity to, the proposed dwelling. The occupants would have no control over comings and goings to the adjoining parking area, and it is clear that a car parked in front of the proposed dwelling would severely hinder access to the parking area for the existing dwelling. There is therefore great potential for conflict to arise between users of the separate dwellings, and great potential for loss of amenity to the proposed dwelling arising from uncontrolled vehicle movements and general disturbance associated with comings and goings. That might be acceptable when the two buildings are in separate ownership, but not as two planning units.

With regard to the marketing exercise, it is considered that either the asking price has been too high, or else the occupant has over-invested in the property making it too expensive. Had the outbuilding been retained as a garage with living accommodation above, it is probably more likely that a buyer could have been found. In the circumstances, it is not an option for the National Park Authority to release the building from the terms of the restrictive condition.

The objections identified above clearly indicate that the proposed development would result in a very over-intensive use of this restricted site which would be seriously lacking in private amenity space for both existing and proposed dwellings, and result in unacceptably low levels of amenity for both of them. It is concluded that the proposal is in conflict with the National Park Authority's development plan policies and that the condition was correctly imposed. The application is accordingly recommended for refusal.

**Human Rights**

Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.

**RECOMMENDATION:**

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

Over development harming the character and amenity of the area.

**List of Background Papers** (not previously published)

Nil Dear Mr Davies

Proposed Retention of Development without Compliance with Condition 2 of Permitted Application NP/DDD/1999/555 – 51/51a Burton Edge (N/C), Bakewell

I refer to the above application which was received by this Authority on 27th January 2006 for highway comments.

I note from my files that application number NP/DDD/1999/555 was commented on by this Authority on 17th January 2000, and no objections were raised in principle from a highway safety viewpoint provided that the proposed car parking area was constructed prior to occupation of the dwelling.

The decision to grant this application was made, according to my files, on 26th January 2000, with Condition No 2 being that the accommodation shall be ancillary to the residential use of No 51 Burton Edge and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling.

On the application form, the applicant has stated that there are currently 2 car parking spaces within the site curtilage and intends to create 3 additional spaces? However, I presume the applicant intends to create 1 additional space, making a total of 3 spaces, can this be confirmed?

Access to the above site is off Upper Yeld Road, which is unclassified highway with a 30mph speed limit. Visibility from this access is satisfactory in both directions and therefore, if I am correct in presuming there will be 3 car parking spaces in total within the site curtilage and given the proposed conversion is for a one bedrooomed dwelling, the Highway Authority would not wish to object to the proposals in principle, subject to the previous condition the Highway Authority asked to be appended to any consent in the best interests of highway safety (Condition 3 on the decision notice on 26th January 2000). Yours sincerely

Graham Hill Area Development Manager

Copy to Graham Hill – Area Development Manager NW District Highway Care Manager NW – David Carr Delegated Item Report

Planning Case Officer: CT Authorised By: Date of Report: 08 March 2006

P-File No: 11130 NP Number: DDD/1105/1073

Structure Plan Codes: GS1, C3, HC1, T8

Local Plan Codes: LC2, LC3, LC4, LH6, LT11

List of Background Papers (Not Previously Published): NIL

Human Rights: Any Human Rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.

Report: The site is located within the limits of the designated Local Plan Settlement of Bakewell. The site, which is located at the corner of Yeld Road and Burton Edge, comprises a semi-detached dwelling together with an outbuilding that provides ancillary living accommodation. The main building is comprised of random coursed gritstone under a roof of plain dark concrete roof tiles, and the outbuilding has gritstone walls with a blue slate roof. There is access direct off Yeld Road to a hardstanding for two cars. The outbuilding has been given its own address (51A Burton Edge), has its own post box and telephone line. The building sits in the corner of the plot.

An application has been made under Section 73 of the Principal 1991 Act to retain development without complying with a condition that has been imposed on a previous permission. Planning permission NP/DDD/1999/555 allowed the conversion of a garage with loft over to provide additional living accommodation. Condition (2) reads as follows:

"The accommodation hereby approved shall be ancillary to the residential use of 51 Burton Edge and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling. The existing dwelling and the garage conversion shall be maintained as single planning unit".

The reason given for the condition is:

The accommodation is considered to be unsuitable for independent occupation because of its relationship with the existing property”.

A supporting letter from the agent says that release from the condition would enable the outbuilding to be marketed separately to form 2 separate dwellings. This letter claims that the applicant has been trying to market the house as a single property at a price which reflects the restrictive condition, but without success. The agent says that the “properties” i.e. 51 and 51A Burton Edge have been marketed in 2005 for a period of 3 months, resulting in 4 viewings but no offers. No evidence of this or the marketing details has been provided.

Policies GS1 of the Structure Plan and LC4 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that where new development is permitted its detailed treatment is to a high standard that conserves and where possible enhances the valued characteristics of the National Park. Local Plan Policy LC4(iv) says that particular attention will be paid to matters of detail including the amenity, privacy and security of the development and of nearby properties. Structure Plan Policy C3 permits development generally with the designated settlements provided that there would be no adverse effects on the valued characteristics of the area, and that such matters as scale, siting, landscaping and building materials are appropriate, and design is to a high standard. Structure Plan Policy HC1 permits the conversion of existing buildings of traditional design and materials to residential use provided it is in accordance with Policy C3. Local Plan Policy LH6 says that the conversion of an outbuilding within the curtilage of a dwelling to ancillary use is acceptable provided that the new accommodation would remain under the control of the occupier of the main dwelling.

As indicated above, the agent says that “release from the condition would enable the outbuilding to be marketed separately to form 2 separate dwellings.” This is not strictly true, as even if the terms of the condition were to be released, it would still then be necessary for planning permission to be obtained to form two separate planning units as separate dwellings. However, release from the condition would make it effectively impossible for the National Park Authority to decline a application for a change of use. This application has therefore been treated as though it is for conversion of the outbuilding to a separate dwelling. For reasons that are given below, it is considered that lifting the terms of the condition would be wholly unacceptable from a planning point of view.

The existing outbuilding that is in use as ancillary residential accommodation is located between about 5 and 7 metres away from the original dwelling. There is effectively no space to the side or rear of the outbuilding, and the proposed side garden would be only 2-4 metres in width. The remaining rear garden for the original dwelling would be only 3 metres in depth. The remaining garden area would be split between the two, but all that garden area would be between the dwellings and the highway and very open to public gaze. There would effectively be little or no private amenity space for either dwelling.

The outbuilding is at a lower level than the house, and it is possible to look directly down into the two side windows of the outbuilding and its entire garden area. The agent recognises that there is an amenity issue to overcome, and suggests that measures can be put in place to address the problem comprising the provision of obscure, fixed glazing to the west facing first floor window. However, no floor plans have been submitted to show how the conversion would take place, and it is considered that the first floor window could be required to provide living accommodation. There is a ground floor window to be protected as well, but it is considered that the proposed 2-metre screen fence would not be sufficient to overcome overlooking. Moreover, the fence would be in such close proximity to the outbuilding that there would be an extremely poor outlook from that side of the proposed dwelling.

It is proposed to provide an additional parking space for the existing house. There are no objections from the local highways authority to the level of parking proposed, but the turning area for the parking for the existing dwelling would be directly in front of, and in very close proximity to, the proposed dwelling. The occupants would have no control over comings and goings to the adjoining parking area, and it is clear that a car parked in front of the proposed dwelling would severely hinder access to the parking area for the existing dwelling. There is therefore great potential for conflict to arise between users of the separate dwellings, and great potential for loss of amenity to the proposed dwelling arising from uncontrolled vehicle movements and general disturbance associated with comings and goings. That might be acceptable when the two buildings are in separate ownership, but not as two planning units.

With regard to the marketing exercise, it is considered that either the asking price has been too high, or else the occupant has over-invested in the property making it too expensive. Had the outbuilding been retained as a garage with living accommodation above, it is probably more likely that a buyer could have been found. In the circumstances, it is not an option for the National Park Authority to release the building from the terms of the restrictive condition.

Whilst the proposed development is acceptable in principle under Policies C3 and LC3, the objections identified above clearly indicate that the proposed development would result in a very over-intensive use of this restricted site which would be seriously lacking in private amenity space for both existing and proposed dwellings, and result in unacceptably low levels of amenity for both of them. It is concluded that the proposal is in conflict with the National park Authority's development plan policies, and is accordingly recommended for refusal.

District Council: Would not support a refusal in principle. Highway Authority: Assumes there will be a total of 3 parking spaces, not 2 plus 3 (as indicated on the application form). Would not wish to object to this application subject to a condition as per a previous approval requiring the provision of car parking for 3 vehicles

**Town Council:** Approval recommended.

**Neighbours:** 4 representations received, all objecting. Reasons may be summarised as follows:

- Will cause parking problems
- Over-intensive
- Adverse visual impact of greater hardstanding
- Loss of residential amenity
- No privacy for future residents
- Insufficient curtilage space
- Set an unacceptable precedent
- Progressive unacceptable changes
- Policy objections
- Non-planning reasons (loss of value)

**Recommendation:** Refuse permission:

Over-intensive development

Inadequate amenity space for existing and proposed dwellings

Inadequate levels of amenity for existing and proposed dwellings RE 51/51A BURTON EDGE

DEAR SIR

AS I LIVE OPPOSITE THIS PROPERTY I THINK THAT ALLOWING MR DALL TO RETAIN ONE PART OF THE ABOVE WOULD IN THE NEAR FUTURE DEVALUE THE SURROUNDING HOUSES, ALSO CAUSE PARKING PROBLEMS FOR RESIDENTS. I THEREFORE THINK THAT BOTH PROPERTIES SHOULD BE SOLD AS ONE LOT. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN PULLED OVER ONE'S EYES.

Yours Peak District National Park Authority\
Aldern House\
Baslow Road\
Bakewell\
Derbyshire\
DE45 1AE

For the attention of Chris Thorp

Dear Sirs,

Ref: NP/DDD/1199/555 ~ 50/51a Burton Edge

Our property shares its western boundary with the abovementioned properties and we would like to object to the application to relax Condition 2 on the following grounds:

1. Over-intensive development: The proposal is incompatible and out-of-keeping with the character of this area of Bakewell and is likely to degrade the value of adjacent properties.
2. Parking conflicts are likely to arise: the current hard standing and access facing Yeld Road will be inadequate to allow for manoeuvring vehicles belonging to two families. This will result in additional on-street parking and potential obstruction near the junction of Yeld Road and Burton Edge.
3. Adverse visual impact: If additional hard-standing areas were to be created to accommodate more vehicles then what little garden there is would become a car-park.
4. Loss of amenity: Splitting the existing “back” garden as proposed will create two very small areas providing little amenity for either property. The resulting “gardens” being open to Yeld Road will have no privacy and are likely to detract from the general appearance of the area, which has improved greatly over the last few years.
5. Allowing this application could set a precedent in the area for property owners to create a “wendy house” within a small garden and later selling it off. I appreciate that past events are not a basis for an objection. Nevertheless I remain very concerned that the Authority has allowed the progressive changes to this development to proceed. The original building has been the subject of incremental “mission creep” that has corrupted the apparent original intention, namely: to create a detached garage with workshop over. Following original construction, the owner of the property has been able to manipulate subsequent development, culminating in the current application. If the original application had been to create a two-bedroomed detached house then it seems likely that it would have been rejected. Certainly had this intention been declared at the outset it would have raised more forceful objections from neighbours.

In consideration of the reasons above I urge you to reject this application.

Yours faithfully,

M C Grandy Mr Chris Thorp\
Aldern House\
Baslow Road\
Bakewell\
DE451AE

RE: - Application NP/DDD/1105/1073

We wish to strongly object to Mr Balls proposal to separate 51 & 51A Burton Edge Bakewell, on the grounds that when permission was granted to convert the garage and store into a dwelling (51A), condition No 2 was entered that 51 & 51A would remain one property, which protects us, in the future event of the property being sold or rented out.

With that safeguard in place for us at Nos 1 & 2 Stanton View (Directly opposite) we saw no reason to object at that time.

If the new proposal was to be granted it would affect us and we are now unable to go back to that period of time to object and Peak Park Planning would be going against its own decision and policy, something we sincerely hope does not occur.

In addition there is insufficient grounds on the property to allow enough ground area for each property and this in turn would create further parking problems on Stanton View/Yeld Road to the existing ones Caused by people from out of Bakewell parking here to go to work in the town, plus visitors to Bakewell parking.

We have already lost some of our view due to this building and we face further problems if the proposal is granted.

We therefore strongly oppose the proposal and hope you keep to your original decision and retain condition No 2.

Yours Sincerely,

David Rookes Mr Chris Thorp\
Aldern Way\
Baslow Road\
Bakewell\
DE45 1AE

RE:- Application NP/DDD/1105/1073

I would like to appeal to Peak Park Planning, to adhere to their original decision on Nos 51 & 51A Burton Edge, to keep them as one property.

Your decision has been made and it was one I did not object to, with condition No 2 in place.

Had I known at the time this decision may be changed in the future, I would have objected in the first instance.

To grant this new proposal would incur further parking problems to the ones we already have on Stanton View/Yeld road

Yours Sincerely

B Stevenson Below are the observations and comments made by Bakewell Town Council at the planning meeting of 13th February 2006 on the planning applications received.

| Date Rec. | BWTC Ref | PDNPA Ref | Applicant | Property Address (if different) | Details of proposals | |-----------|----------|-----------|-----------|---------------------------------|---------------------| | 13th Jan | 2475 | 1205/1183 | PDNPA | Same | Temporary Parking on the margins of the existing access drive | | | | | Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell | | | | APPROVAL RECOMMENDED | | 19th Jan | 2476 | 0106/0031 | Mr A Vicary Hawthorn House Station Road Bakewell | Same | Proposed two storey extension of domestic dwelling | | APPROVAL RECOMMENDED | | 19th Jan | 2477 | 0106/0038 | St Anseims School, Stanage Road Bakewell | Same | Proposed demolition of existing pre-fabricated classroom and erection of replacement classroom | | APPROVAL RECOMMENDED | | 19th Jan | 2478 | 1205/1226 | Dales Housing Dimple Mill Dimple Road Matlock | Hoyle Court Dagnall Gardens Bakewell | Replacement of external doors with polyester powder coated aluminium doors | | APPROVAL RECOMMENDED | | 25th Jan | 2479 | 0106/0049 | Mr & Mrs P Newbould 5 Vernon Green Bakewell | Coombs Road Bakewell | Construction of new dwelling | | APPROVAL RECOMMENDED | | 25th Jan | 2480 | 0106/0052 | Status Investments Abbeydale Road Sheffield | Marble Works Rutland Mill Bakewell | Variation of condition relating to hours of operation (Restaurant) |

IT WAS RESOLVED TO AGREE TO OUTSIDE SERVICE TO 10PM IN MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST BUT WITH RESERVATIONS THAT THIS MAY BE ACCOMPANIED BY MUSIC BEING PLAYED OUTSIDE

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 25th Jan | 2481 | 1105/1073 | J Ball | 20 Yeld Close Bakewell | Retention of development without compliance with condition 2 of permission NP/DDD/1999/555 to allow occupation of site as 2 separate dwellings |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

IT WAS RESOLVED TO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING AS EMERGENCY ITEMS, THE APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS SET REQUIRE RESPONSE WITHIN THE TIMESCALE

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 7th Feb | 2482 | 0106/0060 | Dr Bartlett & Partners | The Medical Centre Butts Road Bakewell | Temporary Portakabin for storage |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 7th Feb | 2483 | 0106/0071 | All Saints Church | South Church Street | Renewal of heating oil storage tank |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED WITH THE REQUEST THAT THE TANK BE AN APPROPRIATE COLOUR TO MINIMISE IMPACT

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 8th Feb | 2484 | 0206/0083 | Mr & Mrs A Twelves | 5 Castle Street Bakewell | Listed Building Consent New conservatory and internal alterations |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 8th Feb | 2485 | 0206/0082 | Mr & Mrs A Twelves | 5 Castle Street Bakewell | New conservatory and internal alterations |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 8th Feb | 2486 | 0206/0110 | Mr T Foxlow The Mullions | Baslow Road Bakewell | Proposed extension to dwelling |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 8th Feb | 2487 | 0206/0088 | Mr & Mrs R T Schofield Sandringham | 6 Haddon Drive Bakewell | Extension to existing dwelling |

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

| Date | Ref | Type | Name | Address | Approval | |------|-----|------|------|---------|----------| | 8th Feb | 2488 | 0106/0034 | Tamsin Brooks Hollyhurst | Unit 7 Deepdale | Change of use from B1/B2 Office to D1 – | I trust this meets with your approval

Yours faithfully,

Keith Bradshaw Town Clerk/RFO 24th February 2006

Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE.

Dear Sirs,

CONSULTATION RESPONSES FROM DERBYSHIRE DALES DISTRICT COUNCIL

The following applications are to be recommended for approval subject to no overriding objections being raised by the Highway Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, whilst the District Council would not object to amendments to design or materials, or conditions regarding landscaping matters where appropriate, it would not support a refusal of the principle of the applications listed.

NP/DDD/1105/1073 (Bakewell) Retention of Development Without Complying with Condition No. 2 on NP/DDD/1199/555, 51/51a Burton Edge, Bakewell for J. Ball

NP/DDD/1105/1147 (Curbar) Erection of PVCU Conservatory to Rear of Property, Ember Croft, The Bent, Curbar for Mr. Irvine

NP/DDD/1205/1177 (Baslow & Bubnell & Chatsworth) Improvements to Site Access Road, Including Construction of New Lay-By's, Chatsworth Caravan Club Site, Chatsworth for The Caravan Club

NP/DDD/1205/1196 (Tideswell) Erection of Agricultural Building for Agricultural Use, W. Shirt & Son, Holmelacy Farm, Tideswell for W. Shirt & Son

NP/DDD/1205/1200 (Ashford) Listed Building Consent – Reinstate Previously Demolished Chimney Stack to Same Design and Size of Existing Chimneys at the Property and to Add Glazing Panels to Front and Rear Doors, Old Elms, Vicarage Lane, Ashford-in-the-Water for A. Middleton

Dave Brooks BSc (Eng), MSc (EconDev), C.Eng, MICE, MCMI, MIED, Head of Planning and Development Services Town Hall, MATLOCK, Derbyshire, DE4 3NN

For general enquiries telephone 01629 761100 or visit www.derbyshiredales.gov.uk

Information communicated to the District Council may be disclosed to the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Dear Mr Davies

Proposed Retention of Development without Compliance with Condition 2 of Permitted Application NP/DDD/1999/555 - 51/51a Burton Edge (N/C) Bakewell

I refer to the above application which was received by this Authority on 27 January 2006 for highway comments.

I note from my files that application number NP/DDD/1999/555 was commented on by this Authority on 17 January 2000, and no objections were raised in principle from a highway safety viewpoint provided that the proposed car parking area was constructed prior to occupation of the dwelling.

The decision to grant this application was made, according to my files, on 26 January 2000, with Condition No. 2 being that the accommodation shall be ancillary to the residential use of No. 51 Burton Edge and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling.

On the application form, the applicant has stated that there are currently two car parking spaces within the site curtilage and intends to create three additional spaces? However, I presume the applicant intends to create one additional space, making a total of three spaces, can this be confirmed?

Access to the above site is off Upper Yeld Road, which is unclassified highway with a 30 mph speed limit. Visibility from this access is satisfactory in both directions and therefore, if I am correct in presuming there will be three car parking spaces in total within the site curtilage and given the proposed conversion is for a one bedroomed dwelling, the Highway Authority would not wish to object to the proposals in principle, subject to the previous condition the Highway Authority asked to be appended to any consent in the best interests of highway safety (Condition 3 on the decision notice on 26 January 2000).

Yours sincerely

Graham Hill Area Development Manager PLANNING DECISION NOTICE

To: J Ball 51 Burton Edge Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1FQ

THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS & GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER

In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for full planning permission, details of which follows:

Office Code No. NP/DDD/1199/555 Date received: 26 November 1999 Proposal: Conversion of garage to additional living accommodation Location: 51 Burton Edge Parish: Bakewell

THE DECISION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is

GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 5 years from the date of this permission.

2. The accommodation hereby approved shall be ancillary to the residential use of 51 Burton Edge and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling. The existing dwelling and the garage conversion shall be maintained as a single planning unit.

3. The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be taken into use until the proposed modified resident/visitor parking area has been provided within the site curtilage in accordance with the relevant application plan, laid out and constructed with a solid bound material (ie not loose chippings), all to the satisfaction of the National Park Authority; the facility being maintained in perpetuity free from any impediment to its designated use.

Reasons for Conditions:

1. To comply with Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which requires the National Park Authority to reconsider the proposal afresh after a period of years).

2. The accommodation is considered to be unsuitable for independent occupation because of its relationship with the existing property.

3. In the interests of highway safety.

Signed Authorised Officer of the Authority

Date 26 JAN 2000

Attention is called to notes at the end of this Decision Notice

1. HC1(a)

Policy HC1(a) permits residential development where it is the conversion of an existing building of traditional design and materials, in accordance with policy C3.

To some extent this seems the wrong policy to use because the building has already been converted to residential use. It could perhaps be argued, however, that the application is for a single dwellinghouse, which is "residential development".

If you had been considering an application for a separate dwelling under HC1(a) without the intervening step of conversion to an ancillary building, would the garage have been an "existing building of traditional design"? Would you have permitted an application for the garage to be used as a separate dwelling? To do so would set a terrible precedent. I suspect that the answer to that would have been "no" and I don't think that the fact that conversion works have taken place as an intermediate step changes the position.

I note that the explanatory notes to HC1(a) in the local plan talk about "traditional farm and other buildings often make a valuable contribution" to settlements ..... I don't know what criteria you use to determine "traditional design" but it seems to me unlikely that this building makes a valuable contribution as is envisaged by the policy.

What is clearly relevant is that Policy LH6 only allows conversion of outbuildings if the new accommodation would remain under the control of the occupier of the main dwelling. This must have been for a good policy reason (although I'm not exactly sure of the rationale).

My conclusion is that it is clearly arguable that this is not a case where the development would comply with Policy HC1(a).

2. S73

With regard to s73, as you know the resulting permission stands as an entirely separate planning permission. It is not clear whether this allows a s106 agreement to be required, although I see no reason why it cannot if it is clearly necessary to allow the ancillary condition to be removed.

I think that if you feel that local needs is an option you can raise the issue with the agent as part of the s73 application. The alternative would be to determine the s73 and suggest they make a fresh planning application.

BP 7/12/05 APPLICATION CODE No. MP/DDD/11051073

DATE: 26 Jan 06

Refer to DES - copy not available, please send to DCO when ready. NP/DDD/11051073

- Land use: residential?
- Loss of road frontage?
- See NPA note on Annexes - 11 or 12/05 grade item.

1994: Erection of garage with store over. Approved 3/4/94. 1995: Conversion of garage to living accommodation. Approved 26/1/95.

6/24/06 SV: Detached garage in random granite. 1½ storey.

- Pitched slate roof!
- Ground dwelling in granite with flat concrete roof.
- Small garden and handkerchief
- Side windows in annex facing house. Mean rear elevation of principal dwelling in close proximity.
- No garden to rear of annex. Annex has separate
- Edges, own post box and own telephone line.
- Overlooks issues over wall 2 m fence. AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE BY: J Ball

FOR: Retention of development without complying with condition no.2 on NP/DDD/1199/555

AT: 51/51a Burton Edge Bakewell

PARISH: Bakewell

REASONS FOR ADVERT: Standard Site Notice

OFFICE CODE NO: NP/DDD/1105/1073

P FILE NO:

ADVERT START DATE: 03/02/2006

COMMENTS TO BE RECEIVED BY: 24/02/2006

A copy of the application and the plans may be inspected during office hours for the next 21 days following the date of this notice at the National Park Authority Office.

A copy has also been sent to the District / Borough council and parish council / meeting for comment. If you wish to make any comments please write to the National Park Authority Office before the expiry date, please note the authority now permits members of the public and consultees to address its committees, including those which determine planning applications. Please contact Committee Services if you require details.

Head of Development Control Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AE

Tel: 01629 816200 Fax: 01629 816310 Email: devcon@peakdistrict.gov.uk www: www.peakdistrict.org Dear Sir

Re: Retention of development without complying with condition no.2 on NP/DDD/1199/555 at 51/51a Burton Edge, Bakewell

Unfortunately, the information supplied is not adequate for proper consideration of the application\* and I am therefore requesting the following from you,

Please provide 4 copies of an Ordnance survey based site plan at a scale of 1:2500, outlining the application site in red and any adjoining land owned by the applicant in blue, the plan must be no smaller than A4 in size.

Yours faithfully

Karen Zubertowski Administration Officer Development Control

\*Under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988, the Peak District National Park Authority as a local planning authority is entitled to ask for such drawings and other information as are necessary for the determination of an application. Dear Sir

Re: Retention of development without complying with condition no. 2 on NP/DDD/1199/555 at 51/51a Burton Edge, Bakewell

Unfortunately, the information supplied is not adequate for proper consideration of the application\* and I am therefore requesting the following from you.

Please provide 4 copies of an Ordnance survey based site plan at a scale of 1:2500, outlining the application site in red and any adjoining land owned by the applicant in blue, the plan must be no smaller than A4 in size.

Yours faithfully

Karen Zubertowski Administration Officer Development Control

\*Under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988, the Peak District National Park Authority as a local planning authority is entitled to ask for such drawings and other information as are necessary for the determination of an application. | Description | Unit Price | Discount | Total | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------|--------| | Planning Fee - Removal of condition, 51/51a Burton Edge, Bakewell | 265.00 | 0.00 | 265.00 |

Paid with Thanks Peak District National Park Authority Dear Sir

Removal of Condition - 51/51a Burton Edge, Bakewell

My client, Mr Ball, has been attempting to sell the above site as a single property, at a price that reflects the restrictive terms of the planning permission, but, as confirmed by the attached letter from his selling agents, no purchaser has been found.

I am therefore submitting a planning application for the retention of the converted garage, granted permission for use as living accommodation on 26 January 2000 under code NP/DDD/1199/555, without compliance with condition number 2. This will enable the 2 dwellings to be marketed separately, each at a more affordable price.

The planning considerations, which gave rise to the imposition of this condition, can readily be overcome by three measures. Firstly, the provision of fixed obscure glazing to the west facing first floor window, which serves only a storage area, secondly, the enlargement of the hardstanding to provide an additional parking space and, thirdly, the provision of a 2 metre high boundary fence between the dwellings on the site.

These measures will ensure that each dwelling has satisfactory amenity space and parking facilities and there is no loss of privacy arising from overlooking.

Yours faithfully,

A. R. Yarwood 24th September 05

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: 51 and 51A Burton Edge, Bakewell

We write to confirm that the above properties have been on the open market since 24/06/05, with an asking price of £249,950.

During the period it has been on the market we have had 4 viewings on the properties, and no offers.

In our opinion the properties would be better split and sold as two separate dwellings.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

DAWN V BANNISTER APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION TO DEVELOP LAND ETC Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Please read the guidance notes before you fill in any part of this form.

Please send four completed copies of this form and four copies of the plans to the Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE.

PART 1

1. Applicant (BLOCK CAPITALS PLEASE)

| Name | J. BALL | |---------------|------------------| | Address | 20 YELD CLOSE | | Postcode | DE45 1EX |

Agent (If any) to whom correspondence should be sent (BLOCK CAPITALS PLEASE)

| Name | A. R. YARWOOD, Dip TP, MRTPI | |---------------|-------------------------------| | Address | WHEATLEY BARN, WHEATLEY ROAD | | Postcode | DE42 FF |

2. Proposals for which permission is sought

| a. Full address or location of the land to which this application relates and site area (hectares or acres) | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 51/51A BURTON EDGE, BAKEWELL, DE45 1FQ, 0.03 HA |

| b. Brief particulars of proposed development including the purpose(s) for which the land and/or buildings are to be used | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | RETENTION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 2 OF PERMISSION NP DDD 1999 555, TO ALLOW OCCUPATION OF SITE AS 2 SEPARATE DWELLINGS |

| c. State whether applicant owns or controls any adjoining land, if Yes, give its location and edge in blue on submitted plans | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Yes/No |

| d. State whether the proposal involves: | |----------------------------------------| | i New building(s) | | ii Retention of existing building(s) | | iii Alteration or extension | | iv Change of use | | v Construction of a new access to a highway | | vi Alteration of an existing access to a highway | | vii Removal of variation of a condition | | viii Mineral working | | ix Waste disposal | | x Other operations |

| Yes/No | |--------| | If residential development, state number of dwelling units proposed and type if known eg, houses, bungalows, flats |

| Yes/No | |--------| | If Yes, give date and reference of previous application |

NP DDD 1999 555

Continues over page ......... I. Particulars of Application

Are you applying for:

i. Full planning permission

ii. Outline planning permission

iii. Approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline permission

iv. Renewal of a temporary permission or permission for retention of building or continuance of use without complying with a condition subject to which planning permission has been granted

If Yes, tick the items for which you are seeking approval in this application:

1. Siting
2. Design
3. External appearance
4. Means of access
5. Landscaping

If Yes, state the date and number of outline permission

Date Number NP/D

If Yes, state the date and number of previous permission and identify the particular condition

Date Number NP/D

The condition

4. Please state

i. Present use of buildings/land

ii. If vacant, the last previous use

5. Additional Information

a. Materials: Existing - Roof

Wall

Proposed - Roof

Wall

b. Is the application for industrial, office, warehouse, storage or shopping purposes?

Yes/No

If Yes, please complete extra form

c. Does the proposed development involve the felling of any trees?

Yes/No

If Yes, indicate their position on plans

d. i. How will surface water be disposed of? eg mains, soakaway, etc.

ii. Is this system existing or proposed?

Existing / Proposed

iii. How will foul sewage be dealt with? eg mains, septic tank, etc.

Existing / Proposed - if proposed please mark on location plan

e. Are there any public rights of way crossing the site?

Yes/No

If Yes, indicate on plans

f. How many vehicle parking spaces do you intend to provide?

Existing spaces within site

New or additional spaces

g. Are there any buildings to be demolished?

Yes/No

If Yes, please indicate positions on plan

Fee

State the amount of fee submitted with the application

£65

6. I/We apply for: (Tick appropriate box)

☑ a. Planning permission to carry out the development described in this application and the attached plans, and in accordance therewith.

☐ b. Planning permission to retain buildings or works already constructed or carried out, or a use of land already instituted as described on this application and the attached plans.

☐ c. Approval of details of such matters as were reserved in the outline permission specified herein and are described in this application and the attached plans.

I/We understand that this is an application for planning permission only and not for any other form of application which may be required.

Date

Signed

On behalf of

(insert applicant's name if signed by an agent) Certificate under Article 7

Certificate A

I certify that:-

on the day 21 days before the date of the accompanying application nobody, except the applicant, was the owner (a) of any part of the land to which the application relates.

THIS MUST BE COMPLETED IN EVERY CASE

Agricultural Holdings Certificate

Instructions

One of the following alternative paragraphs must form part of this certificate.

If the site is not part of an agricultural holding cross out the 2nd paragraph and sign and date the form.

If it is part of an agricultural holding, firstly cross out the 1st paragraph. Secondly is there a tenant? If no, enter 'not applicable' in the space allowed on the form for the applicant's name, address and date of service of Notice, then sign and date the form.

If yes, enter their name, full postal address where you have served the Notice and date you served the Notice on them, then sign and date the form. You need to use the Notice attached to Certificate B. Complete it and serve it on the tenant. You can serve the Notice by either handing it to the tenant in person or by post.

- None of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, an agricultural holding.

or,

- I have/ The applicant has\* given the requisite notice to every person other than my/him/her\* self who, on the day 21 days before the date of the application, was a tenant of an agricultural holding on all or on part of the land to which the application relates, as follows:

Tenant's name

Address at which notice was served

Date on which notice was served

Signed: [Signature]

- On behalf of: [Signature]

Date: 31/10/05

- Delete where inappropriate This map was created with Promap

2. NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITY CONSULTATION – PROPOSED EXTENSIONS TO, AND CONTINUATION OF EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING AT BRASSINGTON MOOR QUARRY, NEAR LONGCLIFFE, DERBYSHIRE, APPLICATION CODE NO. CM3/1205/156 (A93128/APB)

Cllr Mrs B J Wilson declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest as a member of Derbyshire County Council and a prejudicial interest as Longcliffe Quarries employed a relation. She therefore left the room.

RESOLVED:

That the Authority recommends that the application should be REFUSED on the basis of adverse impact upon the landscape and uncertainties over phasing and restoration proposals, and that alternative methods of working, phasing and landscaping of the development are available that are less damaging to the landscape setting of the National Park.

3. APPLICATION FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSENT, FINE GRINDING LTD, NEAR EYAM (HAZ/05/1, P3917/JH)

Mr D Hollis, the applicant's Health and Safety representative, was present to answer Members' questions.

In response to Members' queries Mr Hollis stated that all materials were now stored inside and under cover.

The Minerals Team Manager reported that the application had been made due to advice from the Health and Safety Executive and that it was a specific application to which normal planning conditions could not be attached. It was agreed that a letter could be sent to the applicant requesting enhancement of the site.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED and added to the Authority's register of Hazardous Substances Consents, subject to the following conditions:

1. The maximum quantity of the material 'recovered cryolite' processed and stored on site at any time shall not exceed 800 tonnes.

2. The Authority shall be notified of any proposed changes to the sources of supply, the quantities stored or the nature of the processing of the material 'recovered cryolite' at the site.

3. FULL APPLICATION – RETENTION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 2 ON NP/DDD/1999/0555 TO ALLOW OCCUPATION AS TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, 51 BURTON EDGE, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/1105/1073, P.11130, 7.11.05, 421455/367716/CT)

Cllr Mrs J A Twigg declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this item as she knew the applicant.

Mr Ball, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. In response to Members' queries he stated that he would be willing to accept a local occupancy condition.

The Head of Development Control stated that the previous consent for the garage to be turned into living accommodation was for ancillary accommodation only. A motion for refusal, on the grounds of over intensification and property not being for sale long enough, was moved and seconded.

An amendment to the motion for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the area and amenity was then proposed and seconded. This was voted on and accepted. The motion for a site visit was then voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the area and amenity.

55/06 5. FULL APPLICATION – PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF PRE-FAB CLASSROOM AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT PERMANENT CLASSROOM AT ST. ANSELM'S SCHOOL, STANEDGE RD, BAKEWELL (NP/DDD/0106/0038, P4911, 17.01.06, 421380/368714/ALN)

Cllr Mrs J A Twigg declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this item as she knew the objector who had given notice to speak.

It was reported that a fax had been received from C A Walker of Conifer Cottage, Bagshawe Hill, Bakewell, dated 20 April 2006, expressing concerns of local residents and this was summarised for the Committee.

It was also reported that a petition against the application had been received, containing 74 signatures of residents of the area.

Mr R Bridge, an objector, spoke against the application. He alleged that the application was void as the certificate of ownership, submitted with the application, had the wrong name on it.

Mr I Bourke, St Anselms School Finance Director, spoke in favour of the application.

In view of the allegation regarding the ownership certificate a motion for deferral to clarify the situation was proposed and seconded. However the Officers stated that the Agent had submitted the certificate on behalf of the applicants and as far as they were aware the applicants owned the land relating to the planning application. They also stated that it was the applicant's responsibility to ensure the certificate was correct.

The motion for deferral was then voted on but lost.

The Head of Development Control emphasised that the application was for replacement of a temporary building with some upgrading and not an expansion.

The recommendation for approval subject to conditions was moved and seconded. It was agreed to add conditions covering submission of a green travel plan and use of renewable energy where possible and to strengthen recommendation 2. The motion for approval was then voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

1. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

   (i) Adopt amended plans

   (ii) Roofs to be in 'Hardrow' tiles to match or natural blue slate

   (iii) Design details